OT: Terrorist attacks in Paris

[samwana]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/27/bomb-isis-west-learned-nothign-from-war-terror-defeat-muslim-world-equal-partner

Here is an article from a journalist who visited a lot of different groups also IS. But also Assad and tries to get an objective view on the situation in Syria. I am just reading his book about his visit to IS. Very very interesting.

[Rerisen]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/27/bomb-isis-west-learned-nothign-from-war-terror-defeat-muslim-world-equal-partner

Here is an article from a journalist who visited a lot of different groups also IS. But also Assad and tries to get an objective view on the situation in Syria. I am just reading his book about his visit to IS. Very very interesting.

The sad irony is considering the geopolitics of the middle east, the offered 'smart' solutions might actually be more difficult than even trying to kill them with bombs. From the article:

First, America has to stop Gulf states delivering weapons to the terrorists in Syria and Iraq.

But Gulf states want to deliver weapons to counter Assad and Iran.

Second, the west has to help Turkey seal its long border with the “Islamic State”, to stop the flow of new fighters joining Isis.

Turkey is also underhandedly aiding ISIS and buying their oil. They also want Assad out, and they fear an independent Turkish nation more than they fear ISIS.

Third, Isis can only exist because it has managed to ally itself with the suppressed Sunni population of Iraq and Syria. They are the water that carries the Isis project. If the west managed to bring about a national reconciliation in Iraq and Syria, and integrate Sunnis (which in Iraq would have to include former Ba’athists) into political life, Isis would be finished, like a fish out of water.

We've been trying to get the Iraqi government to be inclusive and representative since the war officially ended.

All these places have their own national interests, and sadly, they don't see ISIS as the utmost danger to them.

It was the same problem trying to train and use 'moderate' rebels in Syria. We said, "we'll help you get ISIS." They said, "No thanks, we want to get Assad more than we want to get ISIS." Because Assad is one the responsible for 80% of the civilian casualties in Syria.

I think the US Government fully understands the above realities, and the futility that Western ground troops would be. In absence of any workable solution, it seems they may have defaulted to the lowest common denominator of, let the bad guys bleed each other out. Unfortunately, this does nothing to stem the tide of refugees.

[art_barbie]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/27/bomb-isis-west-learned-nothign-from-war-terror-defeat-muslim-world-equal-partner

Here is an article from a journalist who visited a lot of different groups also IS. But also Assad and tries to get an objective view on the situation in Syria. I am just reading his book about his visit to IS. Very very interesting.

Good article...i would add.

let the middle east have control of its own oil....turn them into capitalists with a product to sell...a new elite class will form and protect its own oil and subdue its masses or the current elite middle easterners will prevail(which is more likely)...the only we reason we are even on their radar is because they are oppressed, disillusioned and have no outlet.

Instead we are there protecting the wealth of elitists international tyrants that own the oil reserves. But thats the narrative that no one wants to talk about and pretend it doesn't exist as they are instead told lies by war mongerers...that also happen to benefit in the creation and and use of war bombs, planes, ships, etc.

Instead we can simply pull out...and let the regions have their own civil wars if it comes to that...and allow the new power to take(or keep) control of their oil field and let them set their own damn prices.

The US needs to simply stay out of it and buy oil from the the new kid in town...and elite class will form there and the radicals will be forced target its own people if they still feel oppressed which will force the ruling class to give the masses a voice in government or continue to rule with a strong hand.

The US, China, French, Soviet, Saudi, German, and Italian et al governments simply need to make it illegal for any bank or entity to fund either side of these wars...punishable by death. You take away the funding and you kill the war...you kill the movement. You leave them alone and you stop the motivation for international terrorism almost dead in its tracks. They will be left to riot and revolt against their own leaderships if they are left devoid of a voice in said leadership. ME leadership will be forced to give them a fair and equal voice in government. Its a process. Let it play out. The only downside is that the queen of england and the rockefellers and rothschilds will lose billions in their stakes in all of these oil fields.

This will never happen because powerful banking families also own the oil fields as well and are the main source of funding to all the countries I mentioned so they essentially own each of these governments.

Wake up people...we are all human beings...our minds and brains and bodies all work the same...the only evil in this world is the evil that seeks to pit us against each other. The evil that works to create fear in that which we do not know or understand.

meanwhile...the US and the rest of the world can get off foreign oil dependency for once and for all. We can go 100% electric and wind and water and nuclear inside of 2 years if we had to....easily. cars and houses are the easiest. Our economy would jump out of gym with new jobs...and once more...comed and people gas(also owned by international banking tyrant) would become useless as houses went to solar and wind. cars would get waaaaaaay smaller and lighter which makes them safer. Less polution in the air we breathe.

The only thing the UN would be forced to do in the region is monitor for the production of WOMD. UN monitoring agencies could accomplish this as a contingency to allow them to sell oil...they basically would not be allowed to sell oil with out a transparent program ensuring WOMD are not being manufactured.

Then educate them...as a condition of selling oil to international clients, ME leadership would be forced to educate and employ their masses and share the wealth of the oil sales with its masses or else their oil would be boycotted...not unlike Nike being boycotted for using child labor.

But this would be too peaceful and billionaires who own most of our media outlets would lose hundreds of billions of dollars if not trillions. So it aint happening. Bombs away!!!

[TimRobbins]

I think the US Government fully understands the above realities, and the futility that Western ground troops would be. In absence of any workable solution, it seems they may have defaulted to the lowest common denominator of, let the bad guys bleed each other out. Unfortunately, this does nothing to stem the tide of refugees.

If I didn't know better, I'd say you've come around to advocate disengagement.

Is it really so hard to see that the attempt to defeat terrorism with wars has failed? That we have to rethink the war on terror? That we have to finally start treating the Muslim world as true partners, and not as a cheap petrol station we can raid when we feel like it? Bombing civilians will recruit new terrorists. Again and again.

Wouldn't treating the Muslim world as "equals" involve butting out and letting them sort their problems on their own, rather than force some meaningless colonial borders on them? Who are we to force the reunification of Iraq on a people that clearly don't want it? Who are we to force the reunification of Syria?

I agree that bombing is not a solution, but neither is blindly supporting the Shias in a sectarian war. The only solution, that would be both effective and answer the "treating them as equals bar" is to pull out altogether and let all he sides sort it out on their own. We shouldn't be bombing anybody, we shouldn't tell them how to live, what countries to have and what kind of borders. Let the Muslims decide on their own preferred countries/governments/borders.

[Rerisen]

I think the US Government fully understands the above realities, and the futility that Western ground troops would be. In absence of any workable solution, it seems they may have defaulted to the lowest common denominator of, let the bad guys bleed each other out. Unfortunately, this does nothing to stem the tide of refugees.

If I didn't know better, I'd say you've come around to advocate disengagement.

Is it really so hard to see that the attempt to defeat terrorism with wars has failed? That we have to rethink the war on terror? That we have to finally start treating the Muslim world as true partners, and not as a cheap petrol station we can raid when we feel like it? Bombing civilians will recruit new terrorists. Again and again.

Wouldn't treating the Muslim world as "equals" involve butting out and letting them sort their problems on their own, rather than force some meaningless colonial borders on them? Who are we to force the reunification of Iraq on a people that clearly don't want it? Who are we to force the reunification of Syria?

I agree that bombing is not a solution, but neither is blindly supporting the Shias in a sectarian war. The only solution, that would be both effective and answer the "treating them as equals bar" is to pull out altogether and let all he sides sort it out on their own. We shouldn't be bombing anybody, we shouldn't tell them how to live, what countries to have and what kind of borders. Let the Muslims decide on their own preferred countries/governments/borders.

'Butting out' means welcoming up to eventually 12 million refugees. The Western world does not have the stomach for it. Neither to absorb them, neither to turn them away. A humanitarian catastrophe the likes not seen since WW2 is not them sorting things out themselves.

Butting out also doesn't mean the end of terrorism. Whatever you think about past actions contributing to it, its too late now, the littany of reasons for it to continuing is too long. And when the next attack happens in London, New York, Washington, what then, just keep hoping that after 5 years, 10 years, of non-intervention they finally think they've letted enough blood to call it even? I think you'll be waiting a long time. All the while they gobble up more territory and more resources to plan and carry out attacks easier.

Unfortunately, there is no such easy solution. Again Obama's intention WAS to butt out, before that intention led to a point where further inaction would have laid genocide on his legacy, as well as the possible overunning the capital of Kurdistan, one of the few stable regions in the entire Middle East.

[TimRobbins]

'Butting out' means welcoming up to eventually 12 million refugees. The Western world does not have the stomach for it. Neither to absorb them, neither to turn them away. A humanitarian catastrophe the likes not seen since WW2 is not them sorting things out themselves.

I can't see why turning them away back to Turkey is not a viable option. Middle-East (including Turkey) can easily absorb 12 million refugees. There's no shortage of space or resources there. "Humanitarian catastrophe"? Nobody appointed us as the judge and jury about what is and isn't a "humanitarian catastrophe" in a culture we know little about. I believe that region is perfectly capable of solving its own problems if you just let them.

'Butting out also doesn't mean the end of terrorism. Whatever you think about past actions contributing to it, its too late now, the littany of reasons for it to continuing is too long. And when the next attack happens in London, New York, Washington, what then, just keep hoping that after 5 years, 10 years, of non-intervention they finally think they've letted enough blood to call it even? I think you'll be waiting a long time. All the while they gobble up more territory and more resources to plan and carry out attacks easier.

Unfortunately, there is no such easy solution. Again Obama's intention WAS to butt out, before that intention led to a point where further inaction would have laid genocide on his legacy, as well as the possible overunning the capital of Kurdistan, one of the few stable regions in the entire Middle East.

I think butting out will significantly reduce the motivations for terrorism in the West, but even if you do get an isolated attack that gets through all the counter-terrorism layers that we have, the cost of that attack would certainly be far less than the cost of a never ending war in the ME. You overestimate their ability to hold territory an govern. It's not the territory which they hold that makes them strong, to the contrary. They will not be able to expand endlessly like you think. They will get bogged down.

Obama should have never bombed ISIS directly in Iraq. He should have armed the Kurds in a manner which would have allowed them to protect themselves. He should have also recognized the situation on the ground and allow the Kurds to establish an independent state.

[Rerisen]

the cost of that attack would certainly be far less than the cost of a never ending war in the ME.

Never ending war is there anyway. Do you really think if we leave, war ends? I believe the opposite is much more likely, it escalates. With no checks on Russia, Iran, Turkey, or the Gulf states.

Butting out didn't work in the early 40s and it surely is not a thought out or practical solution in the globalized world. On 9/11 NATO invoked Article 5. What happens when France does the same for Paris, needing our intel, logistics, and air refueling to attack ISIS? We say "No thanks, we don't want to support NATO anymore, go join up with Russia." Good chance without US presence, you'd eventually be looking at another world war starting in the ME, whether the Gulf States v Iran, Turkey v Russia, Or Israel v Iran as Iran co-opts Syria as a base and staging ground. Once the whole region is in flames, the globabilzed oil market would skyrocket, sending the world economy back into recession. Letting the lid come entirely off is likely to be far worse than keeping the lid on, simmering and bubbling over as it is.

Worse the continuing bloodshed and misery that would ensue upong leaving, would still be blamed on the west. Both for invading Iraq in the first place, and then for leaving it. Which would engender the casus belli for the next era of terror attacks abroad.

The sad reality is the barbarians are no longer so stupid as to simply kill each other. They know how the other half lives now. And they are both jealous and despising of it at the same time. So long as there is misery over there, they will bring misery over here. Once you stir up a hornets nest, you can try to run, but they are going to chase you.

[Rerisen]

I can't see why turning them away back to Turkey is not a viable option. Middle-East (including Turkey) can easily absorb 12 million refugees. There's no shortage of space or resources there. "Humanitarian catastrophe"? Nobody appointed us as the judge and jury about what is and isn't a "humanitarian catastrophe" in a culture we know little about. I believe that region is perfectly capable of solving its own problems if you just let them.

How do you ship millions back from the borders of Germany and other European nations? Box cars? They don't want to go back and will fight it tooth and nail.

Turkey is a mess of a country already, slipping toward extremism itself. Millions of refugees, on top of the million already there, would threaten its very stability. Not a good look for a NATO country on Europe's doorstep.

It might be possible if every single Middle Eastern country agreed to divide up the refugees to absorb them, but they won't of course. They don't even want Palestinians.

I think butting out will significantly reduce the motivations for terrorism in the West, but even if you do get an isolated attack that gets through all the counter-terrorism layers that we have, the cost of that attack would certainly be far less than the cost of a never ending war in the ME. You overestimate their ability to hold territory an govern. It's not the territory which they hold that makes them strong, to the contrary. They will not be able to expand endlessly like you think. They will get bogged down.

Obama should have never bombed ISIS directly in Iraq. He should have armed the Kurds in a manner which would have allowed them to protect themselves. He should have also recognized the situation on the ground and allow the Kurds to establish an independent state.

If Obama had not bombed them, I do not think they would have lost one bit of territory they took in Iraq so far. None of the ground forces there have the organization to root out ISIS without air cover. Arming the Kurds further is fine for them defending their own territory, but they weren't going to go and recapture 1/3 of Iraq ISIS held that were in Sunni lands. ISIS would then truly own a caliphate petrol state.

[TimRobbins]

Never ending war is there anyway. Do you really think if we leave, war ends? I believe the opposite is much more likely, it escalates. With no checks on Russia, Iran, Turkey, or the Gulf states.

Oh, the war isn't going to go away anytime soon, but at least we won't be the ones paying for it (which is what most Americans care about). You can't win the war by playing their game.

Eventually, without our involvement, somebody will win that sectarian war and some sort of peace will arise.

Butting out didn't work in the early 40s and it surely is not a thought out or practical solution in the globalized world. On 9/11 NATO invoked Article 5. What happens when France does the same for Paris, needing our intel, logistics, and air refueling to attack ISIS? We say "No thanks, we don't want to support NATO anymore, go join up with Russia." Good chance without US presence, you'd eventually be looking at another world war starting in the ME, whether the Gulf States v Iran, Turkey v Russia, Or Israel v Iran as Iran co-opts Syria as a base and staging ground. Once the whole region is in flames, the globabilzed oil market would skyrocket, sending the world economy back into recession. Letting the lid come entirely off is likely to be far worse than keeping the lid on, simmering and bubbling over as it is.

You can't compare this to the 1940s. We're not facing any serious military threat here from ISIS. It's not like they can build a navy and launch a war on the continental US. Gulf states, Iran, Turkey and Israel are hardly big enough militarily to ignite any sort of world war. They will always be contained to regional wars. Not worried about Israel - they are strong enough to take care or their own. Putin isn't dumb enough to go to war with Turkey. You're over-estimating the threat. No war between two third-world countries in that region will have any global impact.

As for NATO - I believe it has outlived its purpose. It's an empty shell right now since nobody in the treaty outside the US has any valuable military resources. Europe has reduced military spending to basically nothing and is completely reliant on the US for military power. The existence of NATO only reinforces that. Turkey being in NATO is a joke - that country is ruled by extremist Muslims and is a burden to the US. We should kick Turkey out of NATO - we have nothing in common with them They are a part of the ME, not Europe or the West.

You're way too worried about the oil market. Oil isn't that big in our economy anymore. We have plenty of domestic oil and we have a lot of slack where we can cut down on oil consumption.

Worse the continuing bloodshed and misery that would ensue upong leaving, would still be blamed on the west. Both for invading Iraq in the first place, and then for leaving it. Which would engender the casus belli for the next era of terror attacks abroad.

Again, I feel a lot more comfortable in dealing with terrorist threats at home than launching some futile (and endless) all-out war abroad.

The sad reality is the barbarians are no longer so stupid as to simply kill each other. They know how the other half lives now. And they are both jealous and despising of it at the same time. So long as there is misery over there, they will bring misery over here. Once you stir up a hornets nest, you can try to run, but they are going to chase you.

Now, that's where you're flat-out wrong. ISIS doesn't want to be like us. They reject our Western values and way of life. They are not "miserable". They are happy with their 7th century type of lifestyle. I really see no reason for them to "chase" us. More over, they have ZERO capability of doing so.

I refuse to believe that you can't see the senselessness of fighting an endless war to defend some arbitrary colonial borders. Let them fight their wars, draw their borders and decide on their own way of life.

[DarthDiggler69]

Im all for it but arming the Kurds directly in Iraq would be a slap in the face to the Iraqi government. The problem is political since the Kurds are Iraqi's. Iraqi government doesn't trust the Kurds so what happens is the US gives weapons to Iraq and they keep it (unless they drop it and run) to themselves and not give any to the Kurds, thats why they lack modern weapons. im all for arming the Kurds to the teeth, they the most trusted and most effective fighting force there, but Iraqi politics gets in the way

[TimRobbins]

Im all for it but arming the Kurds directly in Iraq would be a slap in the face to the Iraqi government. The problem is political since the Kurds are Iraqi's. Iraqi government doesn't trust the Kurds so what happens is the US gives weapons to Iraq and they keep it (unless they drop it and run) to themselves and not give any to the Kurds, thats why they lack modern weapons. im all for arming the Kurds to the teeth, they the most trusted and most effective fighting force there, but Iraqi politics gets in the way

There is no such nation as "Iraq" - it's nothing more than a made up state by the British/French around some arbitrary colonial borders. The **** in Iraq have nothing in common with the Sunnis/Kurds. There is no such thing as an "Iraqi" people.

Why should I care about what the Iraqi (Shia) government thinks? The Kurds are a much more reliable ally.

[Rerisen]

I refuse to believe that you can't see the senselessness of fighting an endless war to defend some arbitrary colonial borders. Let them fight their wars, draw their borders and decide on their own way of life.

We aren't really in an endless war, in the sense it conjures up ongoing friendly casualties. We are doing airstrikes, and not even near our capacity. To merely keep them down and from expanding. If casualties defines the war ongoing, we are likely to continue to lose more in terrorist attacks than we will from our military, whether we remain there or not. They will remain at war against us, whether we want to fight back or not.

Anyway, I think we are having the same discussion we had several pages back. This thread has kind of careened way off the initial purpose, and in some not good ways. Though our discussion has been fine.

I just don't see that huddling down in Fortress America is the least bit realistic. When just about everyone else in the world thinks we need to be there. It's a bit late for not getting involved in foreign entanglements, we are up to our eyeballs entangled in a way that its practically impossible to extricate.

You could get the most isolationist administration possible in 2016, lets say Rand Paul, and I doubt he would be able to pull off 100% extrication, when he was briefed on the realities of the situation.

[I beg to differ]

it must have take bin laden a decade or so to realize the Rothshcild's are jews.

By the way do you guys know that your average every day Muslim does not take kindly to paying interest to banks for loans? I believe it is agains most forms of Muslim religion. I'm not exactly 100% on this so any practicing Muslims please feel free to clarify this...but my understanding is that usury or "riba" does not conform with the principle of Islam as it is viewed as essentially a form of enslavement by the rich.

for the record I happen to agree with all Muslims on this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnRKWTmVylY&t=2m2s

and its one thing for sure they got right and the rest of the world has wrong. Modern day banking enslaves us all. Usury is supposed to be outlawed and illegal yet it persists in just about every single banking institution in the world as all loans are front loaded with nearly 90% interest in those first payments. And most car dealerships are charging 5-15% points over prime anyway so it doesn't matter if they front load but they do as well.

those of you that find this thread interesting should become more informed about the practice and "money changing" and the practice of loaning out money with interest. Paying interest is a well documented sin according to Islam...watching this documentary can help you understand why and help you understand more about some of the core beliefs of islam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtiOEpOnqtI

Anyone who appreciates that link (and all the fun loving sociopaths in its comment section) will love this one: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/

[TimRobbins]

How do you ship millions back from the borders of Germany and other European nations? Box cars? They don't want to go back and will fight it tooth and nail.

Turkey is a mess of a country already, slipping toward extremism itself. Millions of refugees, on top of the million already there, would threaten its very stability. Not a good look for a NATO country on Europe's doorstep.

It might be possible if every single Middle Eastern country agreed to divide up the refugees to absorb them, but they won't of course. They don't even want Palestinians.

You ship them in trains back to Turkey, the same way you deal with any illegal immigrant. Once they know the gates of Europe are closed, they won't be coming. They will find their place in the ME. The "Palestinians" are not absorbed due to political reasons (again, our involvement has much to blame here), not due to lack of capacity.

Turkey is a nation of over 80M people and no lack of land. It can absorb a few million more.

If Obama had not bombed them, I do not think they would have lost one bit of territory they took in Iraq so far. None of the ground forces there have the organization to root out ISIS without air cover. Arming the Kurds further is fine for them defending their own territory, but they weren't going to go and recapture 1/3 of Iraq ISIS held that were in Sunni lands. ISIS would then truly own a caliphate petrol state.

And why is this our problem? The Caliphate is clearly how the Sunnis want to live. Let them live that way. Don't try to force your values and colonial borders on them.

[Rerisen]

The Caliphate is clearly how the Sunnis want to live. Let them live that way. Don't try to force your values and colonial borders on them.

It's also how they (ISIS) want you to live. I don't think too many care what values they have at this point (nor even for preserving British/French drawn borders), so long as they keep them over there. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. See 9/11, which was pre-Iraq, pre any terrorists being bombed.

[TimRobbins]

Anyway, I think we are having the same discussion we had several pages back. This thread has kind of careened way off the initial purpose, and in some not good ways. Though our discussion has been fine.

I just don't see that huddling down in Fortress America is the least bit realistic. When just about everyone else in the world thinks we need to be there. It's a bit late for not getting involved in foreign entanglements, we are up to our eyeballs entangled in a way that its practically impossible to extricate.

You could get the most isolationist administration possible in 2016, lets say Rand Paul, and I doubt he would be able to pull off 100% extrication, when he was briefed on the realities of the situation.

I really can't see why defending the homeland is not realistic. I don't think us pulling out of the ME is particularly difficult. Our military efforts in that region have proven to be completely ineffective, not to say counter-productive. Why not try disengagement for once?

I'm hardly a Rand Paul supporter. I don't believe in extreme-libertarianism (coupled with his antisemitism). However, I do believe that there are limits to power, and I believe that you can't force your own values on people who reject them. We should let the world evolve in its own pace rather than "engineer" it to be like us.

[TimRobbins]

The Caliphate is clearly how the Sunnis want to live. Let them live that way. Don't try to force your values and colonial borders on them.

It's also how they (ISIS) want you to live. I don't think too many care what values they have at this point (nor even for preserving British/French drawn borders), so long as they keep them over there. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. See 9/11, which was pre-Iraq, pre any terrorists being bombed.

Unfortunately, our entire war effort seems to be around maintaining the colonial borders and forcing our values on people who reject them. If it was all about stopping terrorism, there are more effective ways than these airstrikes. I think we're pretty well equipt to stop terrorist plots on our homeland. Not sure another 9/11 is possible these days.

[Rerisen]

I'm hardly a Rand Paul supporter. I don't believe in extreme-libertarianism (coupled with his antisemitism). However, I do believe that there are limits to power, and I believe that you can't force your own values on people who reject them. We should let the world evolve in its own pace rather than "engineer" it to be like us.

It sounds like you are fighting an old battle that realities have moved on from. I don't think anything we are doing over there at this point is about trying to 'enforce our values'. Other than a base value of 'stop trying to kill our people'. Obama isn't bombing ISIS because he is a Neocon who thinks the ME believes in democracy, if just given a chance.

I don't think there is any great allegiance to ancient borders, but rather the simple truth that no one can imagine a way to control these territories or deny them from nutjobs, other than the nation state.

[Rerisen]

Unfortunately, our entire war effort seems to be around maintaining the colonial borders and forcing our values on people who reject them. If it was all about stopping terrorism, there are more effective ways than these airstrikes. I think we're pretty well equipt to stop terrorist plots on our homeland. Not sure another 9/11 is possible these days.

They won't be like 9/11, but what happened in Paris, you can't really stop that by fighting the end point. A couple guys with firearms or suicide vests that people with the proper knowledge can make in a basement. And you get 130 people dead. Actions which are now planned off social networks which they have wised up to.

Yet the source of the motivation, if not even initial planning, is still coming from bases over in Iraq or Syria. You have to kill the inspirational message at the source. Even lone wolf attacks would die out if the physical reality of ISIS, and the spiritual recruitment they do, were eliminated. Al-Qaeda was almost rat hunted down to total ineffectiveness before we left Iraq.

Your way of living with this - until they 'sort it out themselves' - and simply treating it as police actions downstream, at the end of the chain, is akin to accepting X amount of lives lost every few months, years, etc.

[TimRobbins]

Your way of living with this - until they 'sort it out themselves' - and simply treating it as police actions downstream, at the end of the chain, is akin to accepting X amount of lives lost every few months, years, etc.

In that sense you're right. I would rather accept a few sporadic shooting attacks (which we happen whether we bomb them or not), than fight an open-ended war in the ME. The costs of war in the ME have proven to be far greater than the costs of fighting the terrorists at home.